My Hacker Theory in a nutshell (1) #35
This is the eighth installment of "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell (1)," part #35 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. I. It will help me write chapter 16, "Were the laboratories duped by a hacker?," of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24.
[Previous: Science and the Shroud (1) #34] [Next: To be advised].
As I mentioned in my Shroud of Turin News, September - December 2024: I have realised that before I write my open letter to Nature (see here), I need to write a "My Hacker Theory in a Nutshell" post, along the lines of my, "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell." However I have given up my hope that this would be a one-page summary of my Hacker Theory, hence the "(1)". It now will be a series, but I will try to keep it as brief as possible by providing links to my previous posts on topics, rather than references, unless there are no online references. This series will be based mainly on my previous series': "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" (18Feb14); "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (24May14) and "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" (23Jul15).
• Evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet[18Feb14; 24May14; 23Jul15], and therefore its linen is first century or earlier[09Jan14].
• In 1988 three radiocarbon dating laboratories dated the Shroud "1260-1390!" Yet in 1988 three radiocarbon dating laboratories,
[Right: Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), M. Tite (British Museum) and R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated "1260-1390!"[24May14].]
Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, dated the Shroud's linen as "1260-1390!"[18Feb14; 07Mar14; 11Apr17].
• Mid-point of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65 The mid-point of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65, which `just happens' to be exactly 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355[29Mar14; 02Dec14; 11Apr17]! But the actual date range of all three laboratories combined and averaged was "1262-1384"[22Jan25]. Tite, the author of the Nature article[22May22], committed "scientific fraud" by "making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are," first by rounding to the nearest 10 years the actual "1262-1384" dates, when he didn't need to, and second by rounding "1384" to "1390," when 1384 was closer to 1380 than 1390[22Jan25].
• Nature reported that the Shroud is medieval 1260-1390 In 1989, the scientific journal Nature reported the laboratories' results and claimed, "The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" (my emphasis)[18Feb14; 24May14 & 23Jul15]. But "conclusive evidence" is, "Evidence that cannot be contradicted by any other evidence"[CVB]. It is a legal term which has no place in science because to be scientific a theory must be "falsifiable," that is, always open to being tested and found to be false[FFW]. But according to Tite, who wrote the Nature article (see above) if it was proposed that the Shroud be radiocarbon dated again, to test the claim that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," he would have to say: "you can't do that: the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud provided conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval AD 1260-1390," and so it cannot be contradicted by any other evidence! So this was a scientifically false claim by Tite.
• Table 1 of the 1989 Nature article 
[Left 23Jun18] "Sample 1" is the Shroud. The second column is the dating runs of each laboratory[DP89, 612]. Years are before 1950, after which atmospheric nuclear testing ejected large amounts of carbon-14 into the atmosphere[17Feb19]. So Arizona's first run was 591 ± 30, i.e. 1950-591 = 1359 ± 30. Oxford's first run was 795 ± 65, i.e. 1950-795 = 1155 ± 65. And Zurich's first run was 733 ± 61, i.e. 1950-733 = 1217 ± 61.
See the spreadsheet below which converts each laboratory's dating runs to calendar years (before 1950). As can be seen: firstly, the mean date of Arizona's first run, 1359, was the most recent (youngest) of all three laboratories' 12 dating runs. Secondly, the mean date of Oxford's first run, 1155, was the least recent (oldest) of all three laboratories' 12 dating runs. Thirdly, the mean date of Zurich's first 
run, 1217, was the least recent (oldest) of Zurich's 5 dating runs. The chance of this happening is 1/4 x 1/3 × 1/5 = 1/60. But since the laboratories were each dating their sub-
[Right: Spreadsheet table of each laboratory's dating runs in the order they appear in Table 1 of the 1989 Nature article, converted to calendar years (before 1950). Note the range of the dates, from 1155 to 1359, is 204 years!]
samples, cut from the one Shroud ~10 mm x 70 mm[DP89, 612] (~0.4 x 2.75 in.) sample; and using their near-identical AMS systems[13Jun14], if the dates were real (and not computer-generated by a hacker's program), they would have been spread evenly across all three laboratories, with only a year or so difference between each date[RTB].
• Reverse engineering the hacker's algorithm Based on the above, the hacker's algorithm was: 1. Hardwire into the program the first-run dates of each laboratory: Arizona "1350"[22Feb14]; 07Mar14; 11May14] (adjusted later to 1359) (the most recent date of all three laboratories); Oxford "1155," the least recent date of all three laboratories; and Zurich "1217," the least recent of Zurich's dates). 2. For each successive dating run, add or subtract from that first date, and each successive date thereafter, to converge on the target date for that laboratory; 3. Which when combined and averaged across all three laboratories would yield the date, 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65, or close to it because Oxford didn't complete its dating.
Having said the above, it is not essential that the hacker's overall target date was 1325. By his first run date of "1350" he would have been aware that the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355. So his overall target date could have been any year before 1355 that allowed time for the Shroud's flax to grow, be harvested, spun into linen threads, woven on a loom, and for the forger to have painted the image (which didn't happen because the Shroudman's image is not painted[11Jul16]). As for the calculation which produced each year, it could have been a random number generated within limits, so it may be impossible to determine what it was. Nevertheless, since the alternative is that, purely by chance the first run dates of Arizona and Oxford `just happened' to be the most recent, and least recent, respectively, of all the laboratories' dates, and the range of dates of the three laboratories `just happened' to be 204 years (see above), when they should have been only a few years apart, having been cut from the same ~10 mm x 70 mm (~0.4 x 2.75 in.) sample and dated by near-identical AMS systems (see above), the three laboratories' radiocarbon dates of Sample 1, the Shroud, must have been generated by a hacker's program!
• Chi-square test The Shroud radiocarbon dating failed its own chi-square test! A chi-square test is "a statistical method assessing the goodness of fit between a set of observed values and those expected theoretically"[17Feb19]. In the below extract from Table 2, it can be seen that the chi-square value ("Χ2 value (2 d.f.)") of sample 1 (the
Shroud) was 6.4. This contrasts markedly with the table's chi-square values of the control samples 2 (0.1), 3 (1.3) and 4 (2.4). For a chi-square test with 2 degrees of freedom, "(2 d.f.)," the maximum upper limit of homogeneity, at 95% confidence, is 5.99[17Feb19]. The chi-square value of 6.4 of the Shroud samples in Table 2 of the 1989 Nature article means they were not homogeneous[17Feb19]. That is, the laboratories' results are so different that they cannot be considered as the one dataset[RTB]. This can be seen in the spreadsheet table above. Arizona and Oxford's years don't overlap: Arizona's oldest date is 1249 and Oxford's youngest date is 1220. And Zurich and Oxford only overlap by 3 years: Zurich's oldest date is 1217 and again Oxford's youngest date is 1220. Fig. 1 of the Nature article actually shows this. 
[Left: Fig. 1 Mean radiocarbon dates of Sample 1 (the Shroud) and the three control samples[DP89, 611].]
As can be seen, there is no overlap between Arizona's and Oxford's dates of the Shroud sample (shown by my red box between them). But there is overlap between Arizona's, Oxford's and Zurich's dates of the three control samples]. So the control sample dates were real radiocarbon dates, but the Shroud sample dates were computer-generated by a hacker's program!
• "... with at least 95% confidence"[DP89, 611]. This is false! Because the chi-square test result of the Shroud sample, at 6.4 exceeded the limit of 5.99 (2 d.f, 95% confidence), the age of the Shroud sample was not "AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence[VR90, 21; RTB].
To be continued the ninth installment of this post.
Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
Bibliography
CVB. "Conclusive Evidence: Legal Definition," Bar Prep Hero, 2025.
FFW. "Falsifiability," Wikipedia, 24 January 2025.
DP89. Damon, E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
DP89. Damon, E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
VR90, 21. Van Haelst, R., 1990, “Statistical doubt about the C 14 dating of the Shroud,” Shroud News, No. 57, February, 20-23, 21.
Posted 28 January 2025. Updated 4 February 2025.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment